Author Archives: watsondm

Early Attempts to Distinguish American from British English

by Dahlia Watson

Last semester in my English course on New Romanticism, we had an assignment similar to this one in which we searched through archived lyrical Ballads from the Romanticism period. Both times I thoroughly enjoyed accessing historical literary information that isn’t typically instructed in the classroom. This time around I was more engaged and interested because the artifacts provided insight on my country’s history. I was most intrigued by Noah Webster’s “The Grammatical Institute of the English Language” published in 1804. This 136 page descriptive linguistic outline functions to “furnish schools with a collection of rules or general principles of English grammar” (Webster 3). As a linguistics student, I have always desired to understand the significance of prescribed grammar and the stigma against descriptive grammar. In the History of English course offered at the College, I learned that during the second half of the eighteenth century, a movement formed intending to ‘freeze’ the English language in an attempt to avoid the degeneration of the language. English writer Samuel Johnson’s dictionary played a significant role in outlining standards for semantic connotations in English. Noah Webster followed Johnson’s lead but his publication was significant in distinguishing a unique American standard of English. The preface of his grammar book includes personal anecdotes about his decisions to include idiomatic expressions which have been criticized by linguists but he believes they demonstrate the adaptability of the English language. The preface further details his credibility by attesting to his long hours of studious attention to patterns and phrases commonly used in America. The beginning of the book is really interesting because it reads just like an introductory linguistics textbook, explaining the significance of grammar and differentiating between written and spoken speech. He continues these thorough explanations by describing, with correlating examples, all the parts of speech and their functions. I couldn’t help but to notice how the examples he uses such as “doth” and “mayest” have not been preserved within the language. While some of Webster’s “correct grammatical constructions” would cause confused and concerned glances if uttered in conversation today, other assertions are still stressed in grammar classes today but still are commonly used incorrectly in speech. The distinction between “who” and “whom” is observed on page 41 and still continues to baffle native English speakers today. 

Also, the use of the subjunctive was extremely challenging to me when I began learning my second language because I realized that I commonly use the subjunctive incorrectly in English. Instead of correctly conjugating the verb to be as “If I were you,” I frequently say “If I was you,” and I don’t remember a single time when it caused a miscommunication. While some of these grammatical elements are omitted in today’s speech, other definitions such as those for nouns, adjectives and verbs almost identically align with modern grammar textbooks today. 

Examining the first ever American grammar guide further confirmed my knowledge of the inevitably of language change. Webster’s ability to outline all the rules, with provided examples and specific exceptional cases requires a lot of thorough study and significant technical writing skills. It’s to say, Webster constructed a document which has had a significant impact on the development and social understanding of American English. Although Webster intended for his “Grammatical Institute of the English Language” to establish a set standard for how English should be taught and spoken in America, he forgot one thing in his acknowledgement between the difference between written and spoken speech; spoken speech is forever evolving and cannot be regulated by prescribed grammatical rules. 

 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433069256646&view=1up&seq=28&skin=2021

Slavery and the Revolution from the Old Exchange and Provost Dungeon

By: Dahlia Watson

Today I visited the Old Exchange and Provost Dungeon on East Bay Street. The Architecture of the building was magnificent, representing a Georgian-Palladian design which showcased the significant wealth of its original owner. The large and informative posters on the top floor really captivated my attention. They provided information about historically significant Charlestians such as Rebecca Motte, remembered as a revolutionary war hero, and Benjamin Boseman, the first African-American Postmaster in Charleston. Additionally, there was a lot of information relating to the Transatlantic Slave Trade, positioning the Old Exchange building as a common slave auction in the heart of Charleston. I was extremely interested in a display box (although I wasn’t able to get a picture of it, sorry!!) which contained artifacts of enslaved persons. Within this box there were small metal tags which were attached to the enslaved people to indicate who they belonged to. Along with small metal tags that were indicative of a “free colored.” I was astonished to discover that free blacks lived on the Charleston peninsula and that even though they were free they still had to wear a little metal tag, similar to a dog tag, to indicate that they were not owned by other human beings. Also within this display box, two small rusted metal chains and a ovular metal band reveal the cruelties faced by enslaved persons in Charleston. The description of the ovular metal band denoted it as “slave collar” which was used as a torturing device while functioning to reveal which slaves were seen as dangerous or at risk for an escape. 

I have seen photos and artifacts like this before but it never ceases to amaze me. I am blown away by the immense degradation of one race for the complete comfort and luxury of another. The dingy, rusted metal chains inside of the beautifully exquisite architecture provides a very subtle clue on how early Charlestians became so wealthy and how they were able to sustain resources to fund the Revolutionary War. Seeing these artifacts made me very curious to know how enslaved persons were feeling during the time of the Revolutionary War and if they were aware that their labor was contributing to a war to keep them enslaved. Additionally, I was thinking about our discussion in class yesterday about Thomas Jefferson. What should we do with this history? Yes, as interesting as it was to see these artifacts on display and walk through the walls of where some of the most important decisions relating to the state of South Carolina were made, it all still feels a little too glorified. While the only thing we can do with history is study it to prevent it from occurring again, I feel as if these displays almost serve to desensitize our understanding of slavery in South Carolina. Perhaps it’s the portraits and letters written to, for, and about white men that hang and linger over these metal torture devices, unfit for our pets, but used on human beings. Perhaps it’s the busy, rambunctious tourists filing in and out, quickly gazing at human slave collars and casually scrolling to the next contextual piece in attempt to understand what that contorted piece of metal was. While artifacts provide tangible evidence of our troubling past, literature provides detailed and reflective accounts of the sentiments and perspectives of people from the past. Until the limited amount of African American literature that we have (due to laws preventing slaves to learn how to read and write) finds a home on modern syllabi this history of our past will continue to stay locked up, on display and separated from our comprehension.